Recently the courts have become involved in this semi asinine issue of on using “god” in the pledge of allegiance or on American currency (“in god we trust”) rejecting arguments that they violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

I am going to leave the money issue alone because at this rate the dollar can use any help it can get so I don’t think we want to take a chance God would get pissed we don’t trust him anymore.

But … on the pledge of allegiance.

Let me begin by stating I firmly believe we would be better off as a nation if all kids did what I did and started the school day with the pledge of allegiance.

The reference to God wasn’t an issue or thought (but if it truly is an issue I have an answer).

Regardless.

The pledge is a statement that reminds everyone what country they live in, a respect for the American flag and serves as a small (but cornerstone) commitment to the nation as a whole at a young age.

Look.

I am a business guy. I am an alignment guy.

To me the pledge is an alignment tool. That and the national anthem are foundational elements to a country of people with pride in the country they live in.

Anyway.

This ruling was a reversal of the same court’s decision in 2002 that the pledge violated the First Amendment ban on government endorsement of religion (the crap we get out higher courts involved in is stunning).

But finally I heard a federal judge who “got it” with regard to the pledge of allegiance:

“The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded.”

(and this wasn’t Judge Judy)

(wow. I got this one right and I don’t even have a high falutin’ law degree nor one of those cool robes they get to wear)

Anyway.

Everyone should note that schools do not require students to recite the pledge (although I do wish they would).

So.

Here is my solution so that maybe all schools will open the day with it.

The original Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 with the hope that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country. In 1923 “the flag of the United States of America was added to make it specific to the good ole USofA:

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

C’mon dudes (and dudettes).

What is wrong with this?

No reference to God. Never did.

Why not use the pledge of allegiance which was developed with the correct intent (and, for god’s sake, the original was written by a minister of all people and he didn’t include God).

It was only in 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words “under God.” (and I like Ike just not this particular decision).

Just my thinking.

I get worried that we, as Americans, lose sight of the bigger issue (America as a nation) while focusing on smaller special interest issues. I also believe we make it harder than it has to be.

We have a pretty good thing going here in what we call the United States of America.

We fought hard to get it. We fought hard to maintain. We have done some great things. We have done some not so great things along the way. But in the end we still remain the United States of America and the pledge of allegiance is a small reminder of that fact.

(warning: the cartoon used in this post is offensive on a number of levels).

Beware. This post is an out and out unequivocal rant.

Every once in a while someone does something using freedom of speech that disturbs me (I have another post suggesting that freedom of speech doesn’t absolve you of freedom to be stupid … it is a privilege not to be abused).

Ok. I just saw something that disturbed me. A cartoon depicts Barack Obama as a rapist and the Statue of Liberty as his victim. While I find the cartoon itself offensive I find the thought (or thoughts) behind it probably even more disturbing … and offensive.

Look. I understand the rape metaphor is not new.

Conservatives routinely accuse progressives of “raping” America

Rape is used to describe a dislike with a political process or specific actions , i.e., healthcare is being “rammed down our throats.”

We’re being told to “bend over and take it.” (and more like those)

But Darleen over at her blog ‘Protein Wisdom’ takes it to a new level in a cartoon that has Obama raping the Statue of Liberty.

Apparently others were as disturbed as I and told her so. In response to some of her detractors for developing the cartoon she says:

Heck, I want to shake them up. This is supposed to be a post-racial era? Then deal with the fact that the President of the United States is the head of a gang that just raped our American principles.

This is so wrong on so many levels I find it difficult to know where to start. But here goes:

Rape is rape. It is not healthcare or anything political. It is not a metaphor. It is real. It is ugly. It is personal. Using it as a metaphor is disgusting, offensive and disturbing.

The cartoon is a reflection of a level of hate that while this cartoon takes to an unacceptable level is indicative of a significant tone among a growing (ok. maybe not growing in size but maybe something else) vocal ultra conservative club.

This is “shock communications” at its absolute worst.

Too often nowadays it seems too many people, of all beliefs, refer to the raping of America to show their indignation of what they believe (or perceive) is happening. I assume they believe the metaphor will make a bigger impact.

Well. In the marketing business we would call it cheap sensationalism.

And in the marketing world only hacks stoop to that level. If I can take a step back and think clearly on this … I would suggest effective communications is all about “breaking through the clutter in a meaningful way.” And ‘meaningful’ translates into balance. Intrusive but not at the expense of the message. This crosses that line.

Bottom line.

I am offended when rape is used in this way. Maybe I am too close to this issue but diminishing the personalness of rape by using it as a metaphor is … well … it pisses me off. And I am sure that is not the most eloquent nor smartest reason for anyone to agree with me but number one above all it is personal to me. And I would assume it is very personal to a lot of women.

So. Bottom line. It pisses me off.

And it should more people. And that includes the ultra conservatives <or anyone for that matter> abusing (and diminishing) the physical act by using it as a metaphor. If someone wants to be treated fairly or if they wanted to be considered as a credible voice to listen to … they should think long and hard about what they are doing and saying.

The causal use of rape as a metaphor trivializes it. And I find it offensive. And I find it an appalling lack of understanding just to attempt to make a point (not just in this cartoon but with the overall issue of using that word).

I also find it disturbing that there is a level of antagonism towards the president that lies well beyond the boundaries of what one would consider reasonable political debate or an emotional disagreement on a specific decision.

Look. He has had to have a Secret Service long before any other presidential candidate. He has received more threats than any other president elect. Since he’s taken office the threats of violence have continued. For the president himself there have been calls for his assassination. Something has gone completely out of whack here.

Lastly. There is a sub current of racism in the cartoon which I find troubling. And it is a troubling undercurrent within the tone of many published point of views with a black president at the helm of US leadership. I cannot exactly put my finger on it. But. I am not black nor a minority (unless you want to count old white guys as a minority). My minority friends would probably be better able than I to figure that thought out.

I am sure the United States media has been hesitant to step up and take this cartoon on because by doing so maybe it could be construed as giving it legitimacy (I found reference to this cartoon in a British paper – the Guardian). But. Someone should step up and recognize the wrongness of it, the message and all the other levels of wrongness associated with it.

I have written several times about how difficult democracy is. Well. Democracy took an uppercut to the jaw several weeks ago and ain’t gonna be getting back up in Ukraine. And I am sad because I was there when democracy took its first step in Ukraine 5 years ago. And I have friends in Ukraine.

So. Because most of us probably weren’t paying much attention Ukrainians cast their first presidential ballots since the 2004 Orange Revolution Sunday January 17, 2010. Unfortunately this was the first step in the election that would end up steering the country from its pro Western course and strengthen ties with Russia. Yup. Last week they elected President Yanukovych who wants to move Ukraine’s foreign policy closer to Russia’s, and opposes joining NATO (as do most Ukrainians).

They are calling this the final farewell to the Orange Revolution. This election stamped the revolution’s outcome a failure by rejecting, even if by a close margin, one of the Orange Revolution’s founders, Yulia Tymoshenko with her fashion trademark, a golden braid. (International observers deemed this election to be an “impressive” display of democracy, though Ms. Tymoshenko claims fraud and I would reserve judgment until we see whether they ever have another “democratic” election ever again).

Oh. On a separate note I do worry this fraud thing may begin to become the greatest legacy of Democracy (see United States, Afghanistan, Ukraine, etc. elections as examples).

Anyway. The election itself was democracy at its best. The turnout to vote was massive. In the initial election voters trudged toward the polls in light snow in the capital Kiev early in the morning and at one polling station in the eastern city of Donetsk, officials encouraged voters with vodka, sausage and salo, or lard, a traditional Ukrainian hors d’oeuvre. (who says democracy cannot be fun).

In the initial vote former prime minister Viktor Yanukovych, a pro-Russian figure that was the target of the 2004 Orange-led mass protests, ended up having the support of about a third of voters. He was followed closely by Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, an Orange leader from the 2004 election. The current President, Viktor Yushchenko, propelled to power by the 2004 protests, finished out of the running. Yuschenko sought to build bridges with the West and to reduce Russia’s influence in Ukraine, antagonizing Moscow. But. Despite his 2004 victory his performance since then has many voters holding him responsible for the country’s political gridlock and economic troubles. (basically he sucked when given the opportunity).

There were about 18 overall candidates but because none of them ended up with more than 50% there was a final run off between the top two vote getters. (Yanukovych and Tymoshenko). At that stage Ukrainians were publicly underwhelmed with their options as noted by S. Grybok “But, as Ukrainians are now saying, we must choose the least bad of the two.”

Anyway. With the election complete and a new “democracy leader” how does Russia feel? (which, as a reminder, used to love having Ukraine as part of its humble “union”).

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said the results of Ukraine’s presidential election reflected the country’s desire to improve ties with Russia.

Medvedev expressed the hope that Russia-Ukraine relations would return to a partnership approach under the new president elect Viktor Yanukovych. (I have to admit that I don’t really remember any of the soviet nations as having “partnership relations” with Russia.)

Yanukovych, certainly not disappointing Russia in any way with his words, has pledged to end Ukraine’s efforts to join NATO and to elevate Russian to the status of a second official language after Ukrainian.

In addition, he has said he would postpone consideration of the future of Moscow’s lease on its naval base in Sevastopol, home to the Russian Black Sea fleet. The lease expires in 2017.

But. I would tend to believe that is simply rhetoric at this stage. (just my opinion)

So. What does this all mean.

The Ukraine presidential elections look to have brought the country in a disturbing full circle.

(another step toward the revised semi-reunited soviet union?)

Voters apparently returned to support Viktor Yanukovich, the villain in the country’s democratic “Orange Revolution” of 2004. It was after fraudulent elections just over five years ago, when Mr. Yanukovich was declared the presidential winner, that Ukrainians persistently protested the phony results and eventually saw them thrown out. Their peaceful demonstrations rattled Ukraine’s eastern neighbor, Russia. With Yanukovich now in office the link between Ukraine and Russia solidifies (and they are a lot less rattled).

Ukraine needs to move forward instead of chasing its tail. Yet since the revolution, its democratic leaders have been running in circles, fighting each other while doing little to advance needed political and economic reforms. Last year, Ukraine’s economy contracted by a breathtaking 15 percent. Ukraine, the size of France, is simply too important to fail from anyone’s point of view and in particular Russia now.

And I don’t believe now that it has a Russia friendly government it will.

Sandwiched between Russia and Western Europe, Ukraine has the potential to act as a stabilizing economic and political bridge between Moscow and the West.

But. I would guess that it will be Russia that will bring Ukraine back and the gap that needs to be bridged (between Russia and West) will be larger.

But. That’s just my opinion.

Oh. And there is more to think about (remembering the whole Soviet Union thing).

Ukraine gets added to Belarus and Kazakhstan and Abkhazia who are committed to relationships with Russia. (the Customs Union it is called without Ukraine to date)

Abkhazia states the direction others could choose as Democracy struggles.

“Abkhazia is set to have a dialogue with all countries in the region. But the main and only strategic ally of ours is Russia. Our feelings in relations with Russia have not changed after the recognition of our independence” said the leader of Abkhazia Sergei Bagapsh when speaking in Moscow before the students of MGIMO (Moscow State Institute of International Relations). He further states, “We are anxiously watching the situation in Ukraine, are having a dialogue with Belarus in the expectation that it recognizes our statehood, and in the end, it will be easier for us to join the Union State.”

So. Do I believe there will be a new Soviet Union? Well. Certainly not the way it was before.

I do believe there is a strong possibility of what I would call a “Democunist” bloc of countries.

Huh? Democunists?

Countries that have populations that love the idea of Democracy but retain the comfort of Communism.

When democracy struggles like it just did in Ukraine something will step in to fill the void. I have said many times before. Democracy is tough.

While the FBI has been using hot dogs for years as a fat, cholesterol and sodium weapon against domestic spies (remember. FBI can only do whatever it is they do in the USA) the CIA, given a recent pediatricians suggestion, is pondering the use of Hot Dogs internationally as a weapon in a different way.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has requested hot dogs to come with a warning label because they pose a choking hazard to babies and children. Even better the academy would like hot dogs “redesigned” so their size, shape and texture make them less likely to lodge in a youngster’s throat.

Well.

Not surprisingly the CIA sat up and started paying attention when they heard more than 10,000 children under 14 go to the emergency room each year after choking on food, and up to 77 die (source: Pediatrics).

In addition, about 17% of food-related asphyxiations are caused by hot dogs.

Why did the CIA pay attention?

Given recent budget cuts the CIA is exploring different methods to “silence the enemy.”

A spokesperson for the CIA says, “We are not concerned the studies focused on children. We believe ‘throat lodging’ is actually indicative of lack of ‘hot dog eating experience’ and not the size of an individual’s throat.”

In the United States it appears we will be redesigning hot dogs in the future – “If you were to take the best engineers in the world and try to design the perfect plug for a child’s airway, it would be a hot dog,” says Gary Smith, director of the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

Then Smith went on to note he doesn’t know exactly how someone would redesign a hot dog, he’s certain that some savvy inventor will find a way.

On a separate note an anonymous mother, when asked about the hot dog issue, suggested:

“As a mother who has fed toddlers cylindrical foods like grapes, bananas, hot dogs and carrots, I ‘redesigned’ them in my kitchen by cutting them with a paring knife until my children were old enough to manage on their own.”

Pediatricians had no comment.

Hot dog manufacturers stated that until hot dogs have been redesigned they will seek to expand distribution in Iran, Afghanistan and a number of other countries.

An anonymous CIA spokesperson states they don’t believe Afghanistan has paring knives.

Let me begin by saying I have never served in the military. I have good friends who have served and have a relatively extensive knowledge of the Marine Corp through work association.

Does everything you count count? Sure. Especially when it comes to lives. When trying to win a war what counts more? Your own, theirs or the uninvolved? This is a tricky one. but. In general I see the press (media) kind of letting perspective get outa wack.

I don’t condone killing civilians in war (I guess that is kind of a given for everyone). But where do we do draw the line between letting someone do their job and risking their own lives? It is unfortunate but I guess politics and military have to coexist. And to be honest while I like some political “watchdog” over military (just to keep everyone on the straight and narrow) in general I believe the military is quite aware of their responsibility to “people & environment” and from what I have seen and heard take it quite seriously.

But they also have a job to do. Win a war. Minimize their own soldier casualties. Maximize the other soldier losses. So when do we draw the line on politically careful restrictions when it starts costing us our soldier’s lives.

It must be tough to be in the military and try and win a war these days. Once again I certainly don’t condone ‘civilian deaths’ (or “collateral damage”) in war but at some point don’t people need to be realistic?

To what extreme do we hinder soldiers from doing their job? At the expense of their own lives?

The job of a military commander in battle seems like it should be to win the battle at minimal cost (time, people, material) in order to proceed to the next battle with “the most” to engage at the maximum level time and time again.

Frankly, protecting our own soldiers benefits the final objective.

How far does it seem to be out of whack? Here we go. A recent example in a newspaper. Afghanistan.

Combine that with US/NATO saying (in the same article) “protecting civilians is our highest priority.”

I am not a military guy but something seems out of whack here. The bad guys are dialing up violence. The good guys (that is us in this case) are suggesting our priority isn’t getting the bad guys but rather minimizing risk to non combatants. Gotta tell ya. I would be happier if the good guys said something like “our priority is to minimize our good guy casualties and maximize the bad guy casualties.” Am I the only one who is concerned over this?

War has changed. I realize that. We see 40 casualties in one month now as unacceptable while 50,000 in one day at Gettysburg should maybe give us a moment to reflect on cost to win. Am I suggesting we go out and lose 50,000 of the good guys? Nope. Never. Just suggesting that war is .. well .. war. People die. And more people need to die if you want to win. I give you these numbers to try and give perspective (because not fighting wars on your own land causes some lack of reference).

Am I advocating “bigger losses”? Nope.

Do I know what a “reasonable” death loss would be in victory? Nope. I am not a military guy. As a non military guy 1 is unreasonable (or how about even 1 is a high cost). But even I know that is unreasonable if we seek success.

So you know what? I think it’s stupid for people like me (or the press) to be counting. I want the military counting and doing what it takes to win. Because I tend to believe they would like to win at the lowest count possible. And I sometimes think we diminish their military training and certainly are not showing the respect they deserve by questioning that fact.

But this rant isn’t about that. This rant is more how non military people dictating actions, by demanding overprotection of civilians, ultimately comes at the expense of our own soldiers lives (and winning I would guess).

And that is just damn stupid.

It just seems to me that by everyone making the focus individual soldier deaths and civilian losses we are losing sight of the fact our military is there to do a job. Our guys are trained. And trained to such a level that I have a hard time envisioning they are ineptly wandering around shooting anything and everyone in sight. I also have to be honest, I personally believe if I were in a situation where someone was shooting at me from a number of different directions I may be a little indiscriminate with regard to my own firing when trying to stay alive and keep my fellow soldiers alive.

And here is a further wacky thought. I am not sure the military would ever make it through the media gauntlet unscathed if it happened this way but if I had the choice of 480 casualties in one day and win versus 40 casualties a month and “maybe win”? I gotta tell ya, I would let the military do their job and win in one month.

Okay. Maybe this rant is simply to make a point that I wish we could let the military do their job. They know what they are doing. Yes. We can always find exception examples if we dig hard enough. I could find exceptions in everything if I look hard enough. But these people have signed up and trained, and are very very good, to do a job. At some point we need to get out of their way and let them do it.

That said. Once again. Let me state I am not for indiscriminate killing. I just get frustrated when I see media story after media story repeating “25 soldier deaths this month the highest this year.” For god’s sake. People are shooting at each other. Is 25 too much? Heck. One is bad. But having met a number of these guys … they signed up to do a job. They fully understand the possible repercussions of their job. And trust me .. they are doing everything possible to not be on that list.

Bottom line. In my mind. Get politics out of the way, suggest media have some perspective and allow the military to do its job. Because our good guys are pretty good at what they signed up to do.

Remember when you had recess with that funky soft rubbery ball you kicked around and played a random version of kicking type baseball. Or maybe used that same ball to bounce it in that four square thing (which looking back on how could you ever suck at that game?).

Or maybe you did nothing just hanging out with your friends talking about the new video game or games or whatever.

Well. No more my friends. According to the NY Times “With Recess Coach, No Goofing Around.”

They (someone in their infinite wisdom) has decided there will be no more sitting around, goofing off with friends or simply doing nothing and, in general, they are reining in recess because it was breeding bullying and behavioral problems. Apparently schools were getting exasperated because students left to their own devices during recess “ran into one another while playing, squabbled over balls and jump ropes or monopolized the blacktop while exiling their classmates to the sideline.”

(lions and tigers and bears … oh my)

So now we are paying a “recess coach” who organizes games and activities so there is a more regimented recess.

Ok. Before I say something really stupid and probably wildly inappropriate I am gonna take a deep breath.

(breath) … (deeper breath) …

Ok. This is frickin’ stupid.

I guess the interesting part to me is that this action is the epitome of what Clotaire Rapaille pointed out in his study on Culture Codes as the essence of America’s ‘code’ which is one of “doing.” In that we Americans are only happy when we are doing. In other countries when they get free time they relax. When we get free time we look to fill it up with something on our ‘want to do’ list (because we, as a country, never have enough time to do all the things we want to do). Now. This was a jim dandy culture code when it was an adult thing (although it does kind of lead to a variety of other issues like stress and drugs and fast food and … well … whatever … that is a different post).

But now that we are trying to inject into our childrens’ lives that it is not okay to have any down time, well, that seems kinda nuts. In addition, so this also starts feeding into their little minds that they cannot manage their own time and always have to have someone do it for them. Oh. And it also starts teaching them that they will always be protected from bullies in their lives. Oh. And it also teaches them that they will never be relegated to the sidelines. Oh. And it also teaches them that squabbling over balls doesn’t teach them anything. Oh. And, well, I will stop here.

This is nuts. This is stupid. This is teaching our kids the wrong things. In fact it isn’t teaching our kids diddly shit about life.

There are a variety of insanity definitions but this one may rank right up there.

The NY Times on Monday states “millions being spent to sway democrats on health care bill” and then on Thursday USAToday runs an article showcasing the ‘for’ and the ‘against’ TV & radio advertisements (but doesn’t mention how much money I being invested in this little sign of insanity).

Here is the reality. About 30 million dollars is going to be spent on television advertising trying to manipulate people’s thinking (point of view) on the healthcare bill. While suggesting they are doing this to share “the facts” with people it is really about politicians who are concerned with re-election who need to be ‘swayed’ to vote correctly. Oh. And about $12 million of the total 30 is from a pharmaceutical company investment. Please don’t get me wrong. I am all for free speech. But this is out and out manipulation. (as well as insanity to spend this amount of money on this).

As Congress nears a final vote on health care legislation, the two groups that oppose and support the bill airing the ads that make claims about the impact it will have on Americans are:

Employers for a Health Economy ad

The US Chamber of Commerce and other trade organizations formed Employers for a Healthy Economy, which is running ads this week in the districts of some of the members of Congress considered to be swing votes on the health care bill.

Americans United for Change ad

The progressive advocacy group Americans United for Change is running new TV and radio ads urging members of Congress to support the President’s health care legislation.

So.

If you truly believe that each group is going to honestly outline the pros and cons so people can create an educated decision point of view I have some beach property I can sell you in Somalia that is beautiful at a reasonable price.

In addition, as the NY Times states “for weeks democrats who support the bill have struggled to compete <moneywise> with the opposition.” So. If you believe you are going to hear both sides of the skewed perspective don’t plan on it.

Here’s the deal. No matter what your opinion is the health bill issue is complex. And, no, the government healthcare bill is not “socialism.” (that is an entirely different post on how politicians can find words that are used incorrectly but stir up the people in the way they want them to be manipulated). Wouldn’t it have been awesome (if not unreasonable) to have had the politicians go to their constituents and say:

“So, here is my dilemma. Here are the pros, here are the cons, these are the facts regardless of what warped perspectives you are being bombarded with, and this is the no bullshit truth. As you can see this is complicated. Here is what I believe I best for us locally. Here is what I believe is best nationally. (and, oh by the way, they may not be the same.) I would like your point of view before I vote.”

But, no, that would be too logical wouldn’t it? So let’s spend $30 million telling people the part of the story we want them to hear and make this a situation where no one wins when it is all over and done (cause there are gonna be a bunch of really pissed off people regardless of what happens now).

And let me begin by stating I am not advocating a military buildup (although America does have to maintain a realm of competitiveness).

There is no larger threat to world peace than the growing imbalance between China and the United States.

Nothing. No larger threat. (just want to be sure everyone knows my point of view on this).

In the economic sense it is US, European Union and China (sure … you could throw in a couple of others but let’s call it the Big Three at the moment).

In a military sense the EU drops out because they don’t have a combined military (and, in fact, I tend to believe a couple of the EU countries would love the opportunity to kick the other’s ass if given half a chance).

So.

It comes down to USA and China.

C’mon. Let’s face it.

Unless we have global pluralism or a “global country” (which we are not going to have) global peace, or alignment, will be dictated by balance.

And the balance is starting to get out of whack.

Economically it is way out of line:

The US has built up a massive trade deficit with China. The US argues that this is partly because China has kept its currency artificially weak, which makes its products cheaper overseas. I don’t buy the argument (although it could make up some of the deficit). China has a stranglehold on our economy <albeit … USA also has a good hold on the China economy>. While some things may be complex this is black & white.

Some things are just what they appear to be.

And the trade balance takes on even more perspective when you start factoring in population (which eventually translates into production and/or military capabilities).

POPULATION

China’s huge population gives the country’s economy a vast workforce from which to draw.

Thirty years ago, the “one child policy” was introduced in cities to limit the size of families, and this was reaffirmed recently when the population reached 1.3 billion.

One result of the recent economic boom has been a growing middle class, demanding a higher standard of living based on perceived Western standards.

Analysts predict this is likely to further stretch already limited food, water and other natural resources.

While the population is stretching important resources the good news is that it isn’t stretching geography (because if they were geographically bursting at the seams we would be in a world of hurt). But. 1.3 billion and growing is a really really big number. And envision if they eliminated the ‘one child policy.’ Yikes.

The Troubling Scenario

So. Beijing is building up its military forces. They have a very very large army with a whole bunch of missiles and stuff like that.

And combine that with a growth in popular nationalism (the belief that your country should maybe have more than it currently does … on any level you would like to ponder that).

Military.

In recent years China has embarked on a rapid military build-up, acquiring the ability to project its power far beyond its borders. (hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … and you would do that because … well … gosh … because maybe you want something outside your borders? Nah. Couldn’t be.)

We need to assume one day very soon China will be in a position to challenge the US as the dominant power in Asia.

Now.

China’s leaders say their nation’s rise will be a peaceful one.

So. How much do we believe China?

US Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg recently called on China to reassure other nations about its intentions.

“Just as we and our allies must make clear that we are prepared to welcome China’s arrival as a prosperous and successful power, China must reassure the rest of the world that its development and growing global role will not come at the expense of the security and well-being of others,” Mr. Steinberg said.

Well.

That sure makes me feel a lot better about the situation if they reassure us (didn’t Hitler say something about not taking anything but what was theirs in the first place?).

Ok.

Now let’s think about military strength and this national populism thing.

One of Mr. Steinberg’s predecessors, Susan Shirk, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian affairs under President Bill Clinton, says the combination of China’s growing military and growing popular nationalism presents dangers.

“It creates the risk, not a high probability, but a risk, that one day China’s leaders could feel that to look strong in the eyes of their public they have to make a threat to Japan or to Taiwan and that they will feel that they cannot back down from that threat without jeopardizing their own domestic support or even their own survival in power. So I think that is a very dangerous scenario.”

In the world of relative understatements I tend to believe “that is a very dangerous scenario” is about a 15 on the understatement Richter scale.

In addition, what was once a radical fringe in national populism is now shifting slightly more mainstream (and we know how these things work … with a little nudge it becomes very mainstream). If you are looking for an example of what I mean, let me use a couple of quotes from one of the leaders in China’s national populism ‘fringe’:

“I am not just targeting Japan but all those who threaten the interests of the Chinese people,” says Li Nan. “Maybe even the United States and some others, I would see them all as enemies.”

And Li Nan offers a view of how a future crisis, such as one over energy supplies, might spur on nationalist sentiment in China. “In the future, energy supplies will become more and more scarce. Today each American consumes 10 times as much energy as each Chinese person. So every nation will have to think about their own survival. At that time, nationalism will be the mainstream.”

Ok.

I admit. I had to take a minute and ponder when I read this. It is the kind of vision that should give some in America pause for thought.

Anyway. I will leave you with a last thought from our government:

The US National Intelligence Strategy this year described China as presenting a complex global challenge.

I think it is difficult for us Americans to truly understand country-to-country tension. (well. unless the fact we despise that Canada has better beer and have disdain for their overall happiness). Oh, and I don’t mean like an Al Qaeda type thing. I am talking about that disdainful relationship borne of time.

We may understand fear on one hand (think Soviet Union in 50’s). Maybe we understand that. But emotional hatred/tension I am not so sure because, once again, it only comes with time and some good ole cultural conflict.

What I mean is that centuries old baked in emotional despising between Germany, France, Russia and England. That mutual suspicion that is an underlying thread in the fabric of everything Europe does. And in particular France and England. Even today it raises its head.

The channel isn’t wide enough.

I had to chuckle when I read that within the European Union a few years ago a Britain permanent EU representation invited their diplomats to craft a mission statement for their work.

One submission (not used) was “sticking it to the French, every day.”

Awesome. You figure it’s been almost 200 years since they fought in a war. (ok. So they had been warring off and on almost 500 years before that but c’mon get past it). So 200 years and that channel isn’t wide enough to buffer the disdain the English has for the French.

Stick it to the French. From a diplomat. Awesome.

Next. Germans tell the Greeks “get up earlier.”

Right now all of the European Union is kinda grumpy with Greece as they ran up a debt that, well, they cannot pay.

So. The Germans stepped up to the plate to tell Greece what to do.

First. Sell islands to pay off its debts. Good stuff. Anybody in the market for a Greek isle?

Next. Two German politicians told Greece to sell historic buildings and artworks before receiving aid (anyone interested in the Acropolis as a summer chalet?)

Lastly.The German tabloid Bild wrote an open letter to the Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou:

Dear prime minister,

If you’re reading this, you’ve entered a country different from yours. You’re in Germany.

Here, people work until they are 67 and there is no 14th-month salary for civil servants. Here, nobody needs to pay a €1,000 bribe to get a hospital bed in time.